hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Owen O'Malley" <omal...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Shall we adopt the "Defining Hadoop" page
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:48:48 GMT
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Rottinghuis, Joep <jrottinghuis@ebay.com>wrote:

It does make sense to me to distinguish between the case when a company
> seeks to benefit from using the Hadoop name for their product and the case
> when a company uses Hadoop internally with some minor patches.

If they aren't distributing the version that they use, no one will know or
care if they have patches applied. Eli is just trying to cloud the real
issue, which is about distributors and what they call
their derivative works.

For example: large company creates a game-show playing appliance and
> explains that they have used Hadoop for some of the learning tasks. Not
> allowed if they applied more than 3 patches?

Of course it is allowed. It is only a question of whether you can distribute
it to others and call it Hadoop.

> Also, if thousands of changes are packaged together into one giant patch,
> is that allowed?

No, the exception is strictly for critical security fixes and I would
sincerely hope that those would be released by Apache in very short order.

-- Owen

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message